ENDORSEMENTS: National and state races - Page 4






There are really only two serious candidates in this race, Kamala Harris, the San Francisco district attorney, and Rocky Delgadillo, the former Los Angeles city attorney. Harris has a comfortable lead, with Delgadillo in second and the others far behind.

Delgadillo is on his second try for this office. He ran against Jerry Brown four years ago and got nowhere. And in the meantime, he's come under fire for, among other things, using city employees to run personal errands for him (picking up his dry-cleaning, babysitting his kids) and driving his car without insurance. On a more significant level, he made his reputation with gang injunctions that smacked of ethnic profiling and infuriated Latino and civil liberties groups. It's amazing he's still a factor in this race; he can't possibly win the general election with all his baggage.

Harris has a lot going for her. She was among the first California elected officials to endorse Barack Obama for president, and remains close to the administration. She's a smart, articulate prosecutor and could be one of the few women atop the Democratic ticket this year. We were never comfortable with her ties to Willie Brown, but he's no longer a factor in state or local politics. These days, she's more closely allied with the likes of State Sen. Mark Leno.

That said, we have some serious problems with Harris. She's been up in Sacramento pushing Republican-style tough-on-crime bills (like a measure that would bar registered sex offenders from ever using social networking sites on the Internet) and forcing sane Democrats like Assembly Member and Public Safety Committee Chair Tom Ammiano to try to tone down or kill them (and then take the political heat). If she didn't know about the problems in the SFPD crime lab, she should have, and should have made a bigger fuss, earlier.

But Harris has kept her principled position against the death penalty, even when it meant taking immense flak from the cops for refusing to seek capital punishment for the killer of a San Francisco police officer. She's clearly the best choice for the Democrats.




Two credible progressives are vying to run for this powerful and important position regulating the massive — and massively corrupt — California insurance industry. Dave Jones and Hector De La Torre are both in the state Assembly, with Jones representing Sacramento and De La Torre hailing from Los Angeles. Both have a record opposing insurance industry initiatives; both are outspoken foes of Prop. 17; and either would do a fine job as insurance commissioner. But Jones has more experience on consumer issues and health care reform, and we prefer his background as a Legal Aid lawyer to De La Torre's history as a Southern California Edison executive. So we'll give Jones the nod.




Betty Yee has taken over a job that's been a stronghold of progressive tax policy since the days of the late Bill Bennett. She's done well in the position, supporting progressive financial measures and even coming down, as a top tax official, in favor of legalizing (and taxing) marijuana. We're happy to endorse her for another term.




Two prominent Democratic legislators are running for this nonpartisan post, state Sen. Gloria Romero of Los Angeles and Assembly Member Tom Torlakson of Martinez. It's a pretty clear choice: Romero is a big supporter of charter schools who thinks parents should be able to move their kids out of one school district and into another (allowing wealthier white parents, for example, to abandon Los Angeles or San Francisco for the suburban districts).


An endorsement for Jerry Brown in an uncontested primary. Wow. This time you guys really outdid yourselves. Face it: you are a bunch of over-the-hill, out-of-touch, fucking hippies that sold out their ideals ions ago. So why don't you do the progressive community a favor by firing yourselves and getting out of the way for a younger generation that still dreams and whose futures are actually at stake here. You've had your chances and you've failed miserably.

Posted by Matt Stewart on Apr. 27, 2010 @ 9:22 pm

Dammit, Doug Coupland, stop posting under pseudonyms.

Posted by jw on Apr. 27, 2010 @ 11:47 pm

Yes Matt, the future of the ones that can not defend themselves are at stake. And what I do not understand is why progressives still look to the government for the answer (protection)? I don't get it. What ever happened to the rugged individualism of men and women with the entrepreneurial spirit ? Did they drug it out of you Marin kids? What did they feed you in public school? Progressive dribble is what I guess.

Man up Matt !
Start a business. Run for Office. Raise a Family. Protect the Weak. Pull up Your Pants Matt and put down your IPod and get busy MAKING a difference and not "dreaming" that maybe government will help you.

Bigger G is not the answer. Her big Union buddies love the progressive movement. You are such useful idiots....it is a page from their playbook, right out of the communist manifesto.

Posted by Guest Retire Woolsey on May. 01, 2010 @ 12:07 pm

Obama is a socialist dictator hardy har!

Posted by etherealite on Sep. 29, 2010 @ 10:22 pm

"articulate"? really?

Posted by Guest on May. 06, 2010 @ 7:46 am

to clarify my point, I think she's perfectly articulate but using that particular descriptor is a little patronizing

Posted by Guest on May. 06, 2010 @ 7:49 am

Ah, you mean "well-spoken, a credit to her people"? ;)

Posted by Guest on Jun. 01, 2010 @ 3:18 pm

"But here‘s where I stand. I think the president is handling this just right, because he has already doubled the troops in Afghanistan."

-- Barbara Boxer, Oct. 20, 2009

Beware for whom you vote.

Posted by Bill Jensen on May. 17, 2010 @ 6:28 pm

Really? really.
I'm sorry, would you like your rattle as well as your bottle?
Barbara Boxer is irrefutably one of the strongest progressive voices in the Senate, and a vocal antiwar critic.

Go let perfect be the enemy of good why don't you?

Posted by Conan Neutron on Jun. 07, 2010 @ 10:19 am

It's rare that I leave a category blank when I vote, but I simply cannot vote for Kamala Harris because of her position against decriminalizing sex work and demonizing sex offenders. I get that the Guardian is endorsing her because of her good points, but when a public official plays politics and uses your very existence to get elected, you have to draw the line somewhere. I am a progressive democrat and a sex worker. I will not vote for Kamala Harris or any democrat who takes these sorts of rightwing sex negative positions. If she is selected in the fall, even if it is a tight race, I will leave the field blank.

Posted by Guest on May. 19, 2010 @ 8:08 am

Perhaps the Guardian, rather than endorsing uncontested candidates, should endorse (to those of us who don't claim party affiliation and yet can request ballots from either party) candidates in neck-and-neck races who have the least likely chance of winning against the candidates you guys favor. Because really, the primary is all about the November elections, anyway. Just a thought.

Posted by Guest on May. 23, 2010 @ 9:56 pm

Perhaps the Guardian, rather than endorsing uncontested candidates, should endorse (to those of us who don't claim party affiliation and yet can request ballots from either party) candidates in neck-and-neck races who have the least likely chance of winning against the candidates you guys favor. Because really, the primary is all about the November elections, anyway. Just a thought.

Posted by Guest on May. 23, 2010 @ 9:57 pm

Oh - and also Stereotyping. Dreams. Determination. Intolerant.
These are some of the descriptors that popped into my head as I read the comments heretofore. [Like that one?] I am, truly, SOOO thrilled that the (supposedly) "younger" people who wrote them seem to be filled with entrepreneurial spirit and independence and --by golly Bill-- gumption! Seriously, that's what "younger" people are FOR! However, the lumping of all people 50 and older into categories like "hippy" and "old-therefore-stupid-and-useless" is very seriously an idiotic tact to take. If you are at the other end of old, stupid, and useless, that doesn't make you forward-thinking and vibrant. It makes you young, stupid, and useless. Although it seems to be true --for, perhaps, the majority of the population-- that the longer one lives, the fewer risks feel comfortable, do most of the rest of us really think that knee-jerk assessments, failures to consider the big picture while rushing judgment, and comparative broad-stroke ravings are the winning formula? They could all, every one of them, be written by folks from Fox News. Read 'em again. Perhaps it's the testosterone, I don't know. I know that the Editor of this valuable publication is a fine Midwestern boy who just happens to be 50 or older. He formed his views by living through them. I know you don't have that luxury, but you might, as they say, give peace a chance; and that means being at least enlightened enough to get past exclusionary rhetoric and find a way to bring people to your way of thinking by giving thoughtful explanations and arguments instead of using Little George Bush playground bully rantings and name calling. sheesh. Grow up and tell me why it's important that your ideas need to be both heard and heeded. What is it, precisely, that we can all go towards together? Or are you just trying to do some right-wing $#!% disturbing? If not, then how about finding ways to build community and coalition --regardless of age or any other "difference"-- and the message might come through much stronger and louder. Otherwise, I might join the rest of the people who find merit in my comments in taking a short nap in the middle of proceedings. Heard it before. Means no more now than it did then.

Posted by Guest KristiM on Jun. 03, 2010 @ 1:59 pm

Charter schools should be automatically classified as evil. Beware of didactic rationale for something you do not know of.

I will be voting for Gloria Romero.

Posted by Conan Neutron on Jun. 07, 2010 @ 10:20 am

Romero likes Charter schools

Posted by Guest on Jun. 07, 2010 @ 9:19 pm